University Business - March 2009 - (Page 14)

BEHIND the NEws Shovel-Ready Facilities Project Funds Tossed it appeared that there would be prefer- lists is Northwestern Michigan College. Billions in federal funding for “higher education facilities moderniza- ence given to campuses in areas affected by officials at the community college submitmajor disasters, and, probably, to projects ted plans for $28 million in potential projtion” seemed within reach. ects, including a $22.5 million renovation related to energy efficiency. But then it was gone. of course, there was a catch—in the to the former dormitory West Hall. despite $787 billion being pumped into Plans call for transforming the building u.s. infrastructure projects, renewable en- timing. all projects would need to be into a student learning center operergy development and conservation, ated in a sustainable manner. other and other areas to help with jobs in the projects included $4.8 million to short term and economic viability in help conserve energy in 10 campus the long term, the american recovery buildings. and reinvestment act of 2009 wound By the time Congress agreed up not including any dedicated dollars on a final bill, however, hopes were for campus facilities. Public higher ed dashed. or as The State, a south institutions are the only ones left hopCarolina newspaper, put it, higher ing for a piece of funding—but they’ll education is one of the stimulus have to get in line with school districts (and could be forgotten altogether) A “shovel ready” renovation project at Northwestern Mich- package losers. sen. susan Collins (r-Maine), when a general fund for the support of igan College’s West Hall will have to find funding elsewhere. one of only three republicans to education is doled out. for a few weeks leading up to Presidents’ “shovel ready,” and funds not used within vote for the final stimulus bill, said she was day weekend, campus leaders thought they 120 days would be recovered by the state. concerned about the precedent that would had a good chance of being allocated funds sCuP even provided a virtual resource, at be set if a new federal program for school earmarked for modernizing, renovating, or www.shovel-ready.info, so that the higher ed construction were established, since hisrepairing higher education facilities. The facilities community could get up to speed torically state and local governments have initial version of the House bill provided $6 on the funding and get projects submitted taken responsibility for that area. The final bill, signed by President Babillion, and the initial senate bill provided to their states. Marks said campus leaders should be rack obama on february 17, does include $3.5 billion. as Judy Marks, associate director of the realistic in the scope of submitted projects a $53.6 billion state fiscal stabilization national Clearinghouse for educational and should expect competition for funds fund for the support of education, as well facilities, explained on february 4 during a from other states. “it’s not going to be huge as about $8.8 billion “for public safety and other government services, which may invirtual conversation organized by sCuP to pockets of money to go to.” But no money at all? That wasn’t the clude assistance for elementary and seconddiscuss the higher education facilities funding, the u.s. department of education scenario on higher ed leaders’ minds as they ary education.” as a sCuP newsletter reported, “the would allocate money to each state, using a raced to dust off projects in need of fundformula based on the total number of full- ing, many that were a “go” until the econo- dollars intended for ‘shovel ready’ renovation and upgrading projects seem to have my’s shivers really set in this past fall. time undergraduates there. one of many institutions to do more turned into something like a handful The states could then give sub-grants to individual institutions for use on approved than just take a look at their facilities wish of snowflakes in July.” —Melissa Ezarik projects—anything from fixing building systems or bringing them to code, to increas- S O U N D B I T E ing energy efficiencies or boosting security. Projects had to involve facilities used prie didn’t feel we were adequately consulted marily for instruction, research, or student —Matthew Keefer, University of Missouri, St. Louis’ president of the Faculty Senate housing, and certain types of facilities (e.g. and University Assembly, on changes to the retirement plan. stadiums and chapels) would not qualify. U ‘W ‘ 14 | March 2009 universitybusiness.com http://www.shovel-ready.info http://www.universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business - March 2009

University Business - March 2009
Contents
Editor's Note
Company Index
Advisory Board
College Index
Behind the News
Human Resources
Viewpoint
Money Matters
Special Report: Higher Ed and the Economy
Helping the Help Desk
Acts of Adaptation
10 Questions & Answers About the Cloud
What's New
End Note

University Business - March 2009